Red Mosquito

So it doesn't seem right that Danny Amendola can commit brutal unnecessary roughness, yet his team only gets penalized two and a half yards for it. I've long felt that 15-yarders should ignore the half the distance to the goal rule, but even here it would only be a four yard penalty. While I'm likely not thinking about some unintended side effect, how about assessing the remainder of the 15 yards the next time the team commits a foul? That could give them some extra incentive to follow the rules.

Green Habit wrote:So it doesn't seem right that Danny Amendola can commit brutal unnecessary roughness, yet his team only gets penalized two and a half yards for it. I've long felt that 15-yarders should ignore the half the distance to the goal rule, but even here it would only be a four yard penalty. While I'm likely not thinking about some unintended side effect, how about assessing the remainder of the 15 yards the next time the team commits a foul? That could give them some extra incentive to follow the rules.

the officiating crews can barely keep track of what's happening already.

I've never understood why the half the distance rule exists, except tp avoid Xeno's paradox. If a PI in the end zone puts the ball on the 1-yard line, yoi can do the same thing with a personal foul on the 4.

Yeah, the inequity of penalty enforcement yardage is really weird a lot of the time. Hell, if you see the offense in an illegal formation and a flag fly, why not punch a guy in the mouth, cause you know, offsetting.

or if youre really pissed just wait to get your personal foul until a play in which they score.

Similar stupid rule from college football: Targeting.

Ejection plus sit out first half of the the next game.

So a player could target near the very end of a game and essentially sits out 30:01 of actual playing time. Target on the first play of the game and sit out 89:59 of playing time. It should just be an ejection from the game it takes place in.

spike wrote:

Green Habit wrote:So it doesn't seem right that Danny Amendola can commit brutal unnecessary roughness, yet his team only gets penalized two and a half yards for it. I've long felt that 15-yarders should ignore the half the distance to the goal rule, but even here it would only be a four yard penalty. While I'm likely not thinking about some unintended side effect, how about assessing the remainder of the 15 yards the next time the team commits a foul? That could give them some extra incentive to follow the rules.

the officiating crews can barely keep track of what's happening already.

OK, after doing some earlier morning reading here's another idea that should work: give the team that was fouled the opportunity to increase the down distance. So in Amendola's case Reid could have elected to enforce a 1st and 25 from the 5 instead of a 1st and 10 from the 2 1/2.

Green Habit wrote:

spike wrote:

Green Habit wrote:So it doesn't seem right that Danny Amendola can commit brutal unnecessary roughness, yet his team only gets penalized two and a half yards for it. I've long felt that 15-yarders should ignore the half the distance to the goal rule, but even here it would only be a four yard penalty. While I'm likely not thinking about some unintended side effect, how about assessing the remainder of the 15 yards the next time the team commits a foul? That could give them some extra incentive to follow the rules.

the officiating crews can barely keep track of what's happening already.

OK, after doing some earlier morning reading here's another idea that should work: give the team that was fouled the opportunity to increase the down distance. So in Amendola's case Reid could have elected to enforce a 1st and 25 from the 5 instead of a 1st and 10 from the 2 1/2.

seriously, it's too much math for the mensa refs

spike wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

spike wrote:

Green Habit wrote:So it doesn't seem right that Danny Amendola can commit brutal unnecessary roughness, yet his team only gets penalized two and a half yards for it. I've long felt that 15-yarders should ignore the half the distance to the goal rule, but even here it would only be a four yard penalty. While I'm likely not thinking about some unintended side effect, how about assessing the remainder of the 15 yards the next time the team commits a foul? That could give them some extra incentive to follow the rules.

the officiating crews can barely keep track of what's happening already.

OK, after doing some earlier morning reading here's another idea that should work: give the team that was fouled the opportunity to increase the down distance. So in Amendola's case Reid could have elected to enforce a 1st and 25 from the 5 instead of a 1st and 10 from the 2 1/2.

seriously, it's too much math for the mensa refs

Eh, I'm sure Ed Hochuli would have no problem with it, even if he is 65.

I think we need fewer rules and/or consolidate and simplify the rules/penalties in the NFL. And address the obvious, what is a catch? They have work to do. Too many teams lost games this year just to wrong calls.

Complete and utter bullshit that a muffed punt that the returning team recovers in their own end zone is ruled a touchback and not a safety. Fix that shit next year, NFL.

Green Habit wrote:Complete and utter bullshit that a muffed punt that the returning team recovers in their own end zone is ruled a touchback and not a safety. Fix that shit next year, NFL.

you have to establish possession in order to give up the field and be charged with a safety. by definition, a muff is where you don't establish possession. it's not a dumb rule.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Complete and utter bullshit that a muffed punt that the returning team recovers in their own end zone is ruled a touchback and not a safety. Fix that shit next year, NFL.

you have to establish possession in order to give up the field and be charged with a safety. by definition, a muff is where you don't establish possession. it's not a dumb rule.

It still shouldn't be a touchback even if it shouldn't be a safety either. I don't like how the receiving team benefited from muffing there.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Complete and utter bullshit that a muffed punt that the returning team recovers in their own end zone is ruled a touchback and not a safety. Fix that shit next year, NFL.

you have to establish possession in order to give up the field and be charged with a safety. by definition, a muff is where you don't establish possession. it's not a dumb rule.

but without possession, it can't be a touchback unless the ball travels through and then out of the end zone. that didn't happen.

spike wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Complete and utter bullshit that a muffed punt that the returning team recovers in their own end zone is ruled a touchback and not a safety. Fix that shit next year, NFL.

you have to establish possession in order to give up the field and be charged with a safety. by definition, a muff is where you don't establish possession. it's not a dumb rule.

but without possession, it can't be a touchback unless the ball travels through and then out of the end zone. that didn't happen.

I'm not following here. It's a touchback even if a punt doesn't go out of the end zone. All it has to do is cross the goal line.

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Complete and utter bullshit that a muffed punt that the returning team recovers in their own end zone is ruled a touchback and not a safety. Fix that shit next year, NFL.

you have to establish possession in order to give up the field and be charged with a safety. by definition, a muff is where you don't establish possession. it's not a dumb rule.

It still shouldn't be a touchback even if it shouldn't be a safety either. I don't like how the receiving team benefited from muffing there.

So should that be the rule on kickoffs too?

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Complete and utter bullshit that a muffed punt that the returning team recovers in their own end zone is ruled a touchback and not a safety. Fix that shit next year, NFL.

you have to establish possession in order to give up the field and be charged with a safety. by definition, a muff is where you don't establish possession. it's not a dumb rule.

It still shouldn't be a touchback even if it shouldn't be a safety either. I don't like how the receiving team benefited from muffing there.

so should that be the rule on kickoffs too?

I'd say no. Does the muff rule even apply on a free kick? You could make the distinction by free kicks vs. punts.

It appears that these rules do indeed apply to free kicks as well: http://static.nfl.com/static/content/pu ... rCatch.pdf

Chris_H_2 wrote:

spike wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Complete and utter bullshit that a muffed punt that the returning team recovers in their own end zone is ruled a touchback and not a safety. Fix that shit next year, NFL.

you have to establish possession in order to give up the field and be charged with a safety. by definition, a muff is where you don't establish possession. it's not a dumb rule.

but without possession, it can't be a touchback unless the ball travels through and then out of the end zone. that didn't happen.

I'm not following here. It's a touchback even if a punt doesn't go out of the end zone. All it has to do is cross the goal line.

not if the receiving team touches it first, as was the case.

looking further into the rules, the pittsburgh player who "recovered" the muff wasn't possessing the ball by falling on it, rather he's downing it. that's why it's a touchback, i guess.

spike wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

spike wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Complete and utter bullshit that a muffed punt that the returning team recovers in their own end zone is ruled a touchback and not a safety. Fix that shit next year, NFL.

you have to establish possession in order to give up the field and be charged with a safety. by definition, a muff is where you don't establish possession. it's not a dumb rule.

but without possession, it can't be a touchback unless the ball travels through and then out of the end zone. that didn't happen.

I'm not following here. It's a touchback even if a punt doesn't go out of the end zone. All it has to do is cross the goal line.

not if the receiving team touches it first, as was the case.

looking further into the rules, the pittsburgh player who "recovered" the muff wasn't possessing the ball by falling on it, rather he's downing it. that's why it's a touchback, i guess.

That's stupid

Green Habit wrote:So it doesn't seem right that Danny Amendola can commit brutal unnecessary roughness, yet his team only gets penalized two and a half yards for it. I've long felt that 15-yarders should ignore the half the distance to the goal rule, but even here it would only be a four yard penalty. While I'm likely not thinking about some unintended side effect, how about assessing the remainder of the 15 yards the next time the team commits a foul? That could give them some extra incentive to follow the rules.

And then he got an incredibly insignificant fine considering what he did and his playoff share. There's little to no reason for any player not to slam headlong into a special teamer because the league doesn't give a crap about them.

Look at a QB wrong and you're out a week.